State laws funding
domestic violence programs that offer services only to women and their
children, but not to men, are unconstitutional, the Third District Court of
Appeal ruled yesterday.

Holding that such
gender-based classifications violate equal protection because male victims of
domestic violence are similarly situated to female victims for the programs’
purposes, and because no compelling state interest supported the different
classifications, the court reformed portions of the state’s Health and Safety
Code and its Penal Code to invalidate the exemption of males and extend
benefits to them.

However, the court
rejected a similar challenge to funding for alternative sentencing and
community treatment programs for incarcerated mothers, concluding that men and
women are not similarly situated for the purposes of those programs.

Male Victims

Four men and the
daughter of one of them filed suit in 2007 challenging funding for domestic
violence programs under Health and Safety Code Sec. 124250 and Penal Code Sec.
13823.15, and funding for programs for inmate mothers under the Pregnant and
Parenting Women’s Alternative Sentencing Program Act and Penal Code Sec. 3410,
in their respective capacities as victims of domestic violence and as
taxpayers.

Health and Safety Code
Sec. 124250 provides a comprehensive shelter-based grant program to battered
women’s shelters that provide emergency shelter to women and their children,
transitional housing, legal and other representation, and other support
services.

The Pregnant and
Parenting Women’s Alternative Sentencing Program Act funds community based
facilities allowing incarcerated mothers to reside with their children for
programs designed to reduce drug use and recidivism, while Penal Code Sec. 3410
and related statutes provide for community treatment programs for women inmates
sentenced to state prison who have one or more children under age six.

The plaintiffs claimed
that gender-based classifications in the statutes were unnecessary and did not
withstand strict scrutiny because gender-neutral alternatives were available,
but Sacramento Superior Court Judge Lloyd G. Connelly found that the plaintiffs
failed to show that men were similarly situated to women for purposes of the
statutory schemes.

Concluding that
legislative findings indicated that the problem of domestic violence against
females was increasing and that existing services were underfunded and certain
areas underserved, Connelly found that women were more likely to be victims and
to sustain severe injuries, and that the plaintiffs had failed to show a
similarly severe unmet need for male victims.

He also opined that the
plaintiffs failed to establish that prison fathers were similarly situated to
prison mothers, noting data showing that women were more likely than men to be
caretakers of young children, and that other approaches, such as extended
visitation, were more appropriate for men.

Similar Need

On appeal, Justice Fred
K. Morrison agreed with Connelly’s conclusion as to programs for inmate
mothers, but rejected Connelly’s opinion that men did not face a need similar
to women for access to anti-domestic violence programs, noting that the trial
court had recognized that men experience “significant levels” of domestic
violence as victims.

“As plaintiffs argue,
this analysis improperly views equal protection rights as group rights, rather
than individual rights, and permits discrimination simply because fewer men
than women are affected,” he wrote.

Commenting that the
state’s argument amounted to administrative convenience, “an inadequate state
interest under a strict scrutiny analysis,” Morrison concluded that the
exclusion of men from the programs was unconstitutional.

However, rather than
invalidating the statutory provisions, the jurist agreed with the parties that
revising the provisions to allow men to participate in domestic violence
programs would more clearly further the Legislature’s intent.

Different Services

Morrison further noted
that the court’s opinion did not require that programs offer “identical
services” to men and women.

“Given the noted
disparity in the number of women needing services and the greater severity of
their injuries, it may be appropriate to provide more and different services to
battered women and their children,” he said.

Representatives of the
Attorney General’s office could not be reached for comment, but plaintiffs’
counsel Marc J. Angelucci of the Men’s Legal Center in San Diego told the
MetNews that the court’s decision with respect to access to domestic violence
programs was “a big step in the right direction.”

Angelucci said that he
expected to seek review by the California Supreme Court of the portion of the
opinion with respect to inmate programs, but he commented that the domestic
violence program portion of the opinion sent a message that male victims of
domestic violence “deserve the same equal dignity” as female victims.

He added that he also
expected to file further suits against the state and in Los Angeles County,
accusing the latter of being the “worst” in the state in terms of providing support
services to male victims of domestic violence.

Justices Vance W. Raye
and Tani Cantil Sakauye joined Morrison in his opinion.